Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protects employees of publicly traded companies from retaliation by their employers for reporting conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes shareholder fraud or a violation of U.S. securities law. This protection empowers employees with knowledge of past, ongoing, or likely future fraud to "blow the whistle" by sharing that information with regulators, legislators, or supervisors without fear of reprisal. Like other sections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the ultimate goal is to discourage, identify, and terminate fraud in public companies, thereby avoiding or mitigating harm to their respective shareholders. Early interpretations of Section 806 by the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) fairly balanced the interests of the public, employers, and employees. With the ARB's guidance, courts protected whistleblowers whose reports demonstrated an objectively reasonable belief of an existing or imminent violation of securities law. However, an abrupt reversal by the ARB following a partisan presidential transition has tempted some courts to stretch the meaning of protected reporting activity beyond the intent of Section 806. Specifically, the Third and Sixth Circuits have found that an employee may be protected even if the allegations in her report fail to approximate elements of shareholder fraud or a violation of securities law. These expansions virtually eliminate the Section's reasonable belief requirement, rewarding reckless, premature complaints and threatening to drown out reporting activity that promotes the Act's policy goals. To avert judicial overreach in the scope of protected activity, this Note suggests that regulators develop a model policy, procedures, and training for key employees at large public companies to properly identify and report potential fraud. Such programs already complement other workplace laws and would promote the goals of Section 806 without unduly burdening employers or the public with inadequate and wasteful reporting activity.
Service members face an increased risk of sexual assault and harassment in the U.S. military when compared to American civilian society. Yet, Congress recently dialed back its efforts to help military sexual trauma (MST) survivors. Congress cut access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care for a subset of MST survivors-those who receive bad discharges. In doing so, Congress failed to appreciate the link between a survivor's trauma and how that trauma can manifest-often as misconduct resulting in a less than honorable discharge. This Article is the first to shine a spotlight on the overlooked second battle that MST survivors must fight in gaining VA health care eligibility for their trauma-induced conditions. This Article not only highlights the less well-known history of VA eligibility rules for MST survivors, but it also proposes practical solutions to ensure VA health care access to all MST survivors, thereby ending the second battle they should never have been forced to fight. "Less well known is the second battle that many veterans who survive sexual violence must fi ght with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) when they return to civilian life."1
"Marriage is a matter of more worth / Than to be dealt in by attorneyship." WILLIAM SHAkESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART I act 5, sc. 5, l. 55-56. A failed tenancy by the entirety occurs when a conveyance is made to an unmarried pair either as [1] tenants by the entirety or [2] as spouses; because such pairs lack the requisite unity of marriage, a tenancy by the entirety cannot be created. In most states in both instances, the unmarried pair will instead merely hold the property as tenants in common, where there is no right of survivorship. This Note takes the position that this is inequitable and instead advocates for a framework where states treat unwed grantees the same as their married counterparts as relating to the creation of the right of survivorship, thus furthering equality between married and unmarried pairs. This Note includes a survey of states that maintain tenancy by the entirety, analyzing what the current outcome of failed tenancies by the entirety is, and what the outcome would be under this proposal.
